Slashdot Mirror
Dutch Study Says Filesharing Has Positive Economic Effects
An anonymous reader writes "In a study conducted by TNO for the Dutch government the economic effects of filesharing are found to be positive. According to the 146 page report (available for download, but in Dutch) filesharing is good for the prosperity of the Dutch: with filesharing more media are available, even though this costs the media industry some profit. One of the most noticeable conclusions is that downloading and buying are not mutually exclusive: downloaders on average buy just as much music as non-downloaders, but they buy more DVDs and games then people who don't download. They also tend to visit more concerts and buy more merchandise."
So, assuming this study is accurate, there are two conclusions one could come to:
1) Downloading opens people to things they would not know about, causing them to buy more. So, downloading should be allowed as advertisement.
2) The people who download are the most fervent fans. So, downloading should be allowed as a means to not drive them away.
Any others? /I was a a 1) when I stopped downloading, and consuming, all RIAA media.
Pulp Audio Weekly - Geek News and Reviews
I think the first response by american institutions will be:
"It has a positive benefit for the dutch because they are stealing from us. Which clearly proves it has a negative benefit for us".
We should also point out the frequently cited possibility that downloaders' propensity to purchase is positively correlated with downloading (the so-called sampling effect). Google around for this and you will find at least 10 papers that discuss it.
Example: http://www.rufuspollock.org/economics/p2p_summary.html
This game will waste your life. Don't clicky!
The music industry doesn't care if the end result of file sharing is good for the economy (which I can easily agree it probably is) because they don't make money from the economy as a whole. They don't care if fans of music (including file sharers) are more inclined to pay outrageous prices to see a concert - most music companies don't make money from concert proceeds. For me, however, POLITICIANS should be paying attention to this information. Sure, they may have some lobbyist chewing their ear out about how bad file sharing is and that it must be stopped before the end of the world comes as a result but they need to be shown the bigger picture so that they can make the best decision for the people.
I know. I know. I can hope that there are still some politicians who are actually interested in doing the right thing for the people they represent...
So what they've discovered here is that people who are really interested in music (i.e. they download a lot of it) tend to buy more music than people who are not that into it (i.e. they download very little). This is not surprising ("obvious" would be a better word), nor does it say anything definitive about the effect of downloading on sales, because (all together now) correlation does not equal causation.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
What you say is true.
Those rights were created so that society would benefit, not so the individuals would benefit.
The point of those rights was to encourage the creation of new works.
The rights have been expanded to the point that they now frequently prevent the creation of new works.
I think we should respect those rights as far as they promote new works and not any further.
I am particularly against paying money to encourage artists who are dead to make new works.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Music downloads are just a form of free advertising. Hell, people are falling all over themselves to write software to do it, set up websites to promote it and use them to get the music. The music industry doesn't have to do a thing. There's still a ton of money to be made on merchandising, touring, advertising, etc.. If only the music industry could just grasp this very basic point...
I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
What worries the various *AA's is the opposite effect. When someone downloads the next big thing and discovers it's crap so they don't but it.
They would rather just have you buy everything sight unseen. It's not like you can take it back.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Give me one good reason why anyone has a natural right to simply copy the recorded work of an artist or musician.
Give me one good reason why anyone has a natural right to prevent someone from making a copy of any recorded work.
You can argue until you are blue in the fact that there is a major difference between copyright infringement and outright theft, but in the end, the entitlement mentality that justifies both on moral grounds is the same in both cases.
The justification isn't the same unless you've already made the assumption that copyright is a legitimate form of property. The moral argument supporting private property rights is a product of scarcity, which doesn't apply to copyrights. Even the pro-copyright crowd doesn't really treat copyrights as though they were property; differences include time limits, statutory damages, higher penalties than are imposed for outright theft, etc.
If the law simply set the same standards for damages for copyright infringement as for theft it would resolve the issue instantly, as there are no damages for copyright infringement -- not unless you consider competition itself to be a tort demanding recompense (the "lost sale" argument). It is copyright itself, not infringement, which demands justification.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
And I'm tired of seeing every study like this tagged as correlationisnotcausation. We understand, taggers. Yet you don't seem to understand that given a large enough number of samples, correlation implies causation. It's like you're saying, "Hey, I learned this clever, semi-alliterative phrase in eighth grade and I'm showing everybody how intelligent I am by abruptly and automatically stating it whenever there is any mention of a study correlating two things."
No existe.
*Gasp* you mean the MafiAA's business model is predicated on the customer being too stupid/uninformed to know when what they are buying is worth the money?
For Shame! I would never have known... well actually I would, because I make it a point not to purchase anything without doing the research first.
If you can read this sig, congratulations, you have your glasses on!